I was getting ready to go to the cafe today to update my CV and do some research and it hit me. If I want to sit at a cafe and pound out some text like I do on my Macbook or can be done on a netbook, you can't really do that on an iPad. The iPad is more of a media browsing device (as everyone says, it's just a jumbo iPhone).

How can we possibly write extensive texts using the virtual iPad keyboard? Also the device needs a stand which could prove to be unstable or inconvenient.

I can't see using the iPad upright in its stand while typing on the virtual keyboard. This means that we need both a BT/WiFi keyboard and we also are forced to use a stand.

I don't know if I'm liking this new iPad

What makes you think your incapable of using a virtual keyboard? If pounding out text I would use a small bluetooth keyboard but if my main goal was writing I doubt I would be using a netbook. The focus of the iPad obviously is media consumption but the device will be quite capable of producing document when you don't want to drag along a laptop.

That would be really late. According to their record on previewing iPhone OS 2 & 3 I would expect an event before the end of the month. Maybe they will wait for the iPad to be launched before introducing the new SDK, but if they wait until May, developers will only get a month and a half before the new iPhone comes out, hopefully with the new software.

They will get 2 months from early May to early July. This is what it will be. Just like the 2 months from no iPad to iPad. 2 months is more than enough for active iOS developers. This isn't 2008, when they had to start more than 4 months out just to get the ball rolling and have 20 Apps for sale when the 3G was released.

iOS 4.0 is not going to be unveiled at all until the iPad, BOTH models, are moving out the door. They don't want to shoot themselves in the foot and give people pause.

ie: "Wait, what's coming soon? 4 point what? Do I get that if I buy one today? think I'll wait..."

Not everyone is familiar with the release schedule, and people are easily confused. Anytime Apple puts up "Coming Soon," It slows sales in that category. How well do you think the iPhone sells in the days after announcing the next hardware gen? Not too well. But thats expected.

So, again, they are not going to announce anything new related to the iOS, specifically the next major upgrade to 4.0, until iPad sales are fully underway and all early adopters have made they move.

That would be really late. According to their record on previewing iPhone OS 2 & 3 I would expect an event before the end of the month. Maybe they will wait for the iPad to be launched before introducing the new SDK, but if they wait until May, developers will only get a month and a half before the new iPhone comes out, hopefully with the new software.

Hopefully when the iPad is released it will have the new OS 4G, makes more sense, otherwise you will have to upgrade the iPad to the new OS 4G when it's released.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

Hopefully when the iPad is released it will have the new OS 4G, makes more sense, otherwise you will have to upgrade the iPad to the new OS 4G when it's released.

The iPad will launch with new firmware but doubtful that they will call it version 4 of Iphone OS. Apple has called it 3.2 for a reason. They wouldn't throw a major update out without giving App developers a chance to ensure compatibility and they need to provide a method for developers to build software for both the iPhone and iPad. I would expect Apple to preview the Iphone OS SDK soon to give developers a chance to update/optimize their software.

I've seen the estimates of 50,000 in the first two hours and the 91,000 in the first 6 hours. Has anyone estimated yet how many were sold in the first 24 hours?

Also, aren't all of these estimates actually quite a bit lower than what has actually been ordered? The estimates only are based on sales through the apple store and from what I can tell don't factor in at all the ones that have been reserved for pickup at an Apple retail store on April 3rd.

We're going to put our first one into production use at our business right away. We have a specific need for a portable web browser where an iPhone touch is too small and a laptop (even a macbook air or netbook) is too clunky. The iPad should be perfect for this need - something that can be used to easily enter data while walking around.

Hopefully when the iPad is released it will have the new OS 4G, makes more sense, otherwise you will have to upgrade the iPad to the new OS 4G when it's released.

They've only released v3.2 to devs. Apps are being rewritten and updated for v3.2. They aren't going to switch it up by having v4.0 installed. When you look at the changes between v3.1 and v3.2 it's clear there are significant changes to the iPhone OS but any v4.0 changes will have to wait until well after v4.0 is introduced in a special event and the SDK is released to devs with plenty of time for them to make changes for compatibility and to utilize the new features.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I've seen the estimates of 50,000 in the first two hours and the 91,000 in the first 6 hours. Has anyone estimated yet how many were sold in the first 24 hours?

Also, aren't all of these estimates actually quite a bit lower than what has actually been ordered? The estimates only are based on sales through the apple store and from what I can tell don't factor in at all the ones that have been reserved for pickup at an Apple retail store on April 3rd.

Apple may come out with some stats but it's all pretty irrelevant at this time. These are only US sales, the ones doing in-store pickup (as you said), there are many waiting for the 3G version and many more waiting to test the iPad and read reviews before committing to it.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Just one kid? I have enough AAPL to put your kid, their kids and their kids kids through private college. In fact there would still be some left over to throw some education your way which you clearly need.

Why's that do you think? When iPod and iTunes were launched, it was easy to use your existing CD music collection. When AppleTV was launched, it wasn't easy to use your existing DVD collection. iPod was a huge success, AppleTV was a huge flop. It's not exactly rocket science.

Adding a DVD or BD now is too late, Apple have missed the boat on that one. They should drop AppleTV and concentrate on the Mac Mini instead, adding HDMI, a BluRay option and beefing up FrontRow. Better yet, include a TV tuner and PVR functionality (and include a universal remote so you can control the TV as well) and turn the whole thing into a proper media center.

Connect both a DVD/BD and an AppleTV to your TV set? Sure, it's POSSIBLE (assuming your TV has enough inputs) but having to faff about with so many remotes and switching inputs isn't exactly the perfect user experience. If Apple provided a decent integrated media center solution I'd throw away my existing DVD player and PVR in a heartbeat, but the AppleTV just isn't it, sorry.

You're right AppleTV is not a complete media center. It never was meant to be. It was meant to be an iPod for your TV. Complaining about this isn't really fair. It's like complaining that your refrigerator doesn't also toast bread.

I agree that the ability to rip easily DVDs into iTunes like you can with CDs would have been a huge boom for AppleTV, but the studios would never allow such a thing. Still, there are free third party solutions that I use to do this. So is it really that big of a deal that the feature isn't built into iTunes?

Connecting multiple devies to your TV is not a big deal. We have been doing it for decades. In the 80's my family had a cable box, game console and VHS player. These days I have a BD player, game console and Apple TV. Not much difference.

And if you still say connecting both a BD player and an AppleTV to your TV is too much then why is it too late for Apple to add a BD player to AppleTV and cut down on the number of devices you have connected to your TV? It's like you're not happy with the way things are and you're not happy with a change either.

Personally, the AppleTV has decreased the number of devices I have connected to my TV because I would up canceling my cable service and buying shows/seasons from the iTunes Store. It forced me to think of my viewing habits differently and make some big changes. Maybe that's why it hasn't taken off. It's too different from what we're accustomed to.

Its also been reported that these confirmation numbers could be driven by every single apple store purchase not just iPad sales. Even if this these numbers were generate US only or worldwide or when the number system started to generate.

Have you read anything where someone reported having a iPad confirmation number of something like 000001?

their are estimates on how many sales the online apple store normally makes in a day (about 15,000 orders). These are subtracted out to calculate estimates of iPad sales. Even with that there is a significant margin for error in the estimates. Not knowing how many people ordered 1 vs 2, not knowing how many people did the reserve for pickup option, not knowing how many of the normal orders that have been factored out were from people who added an iPad to their order.

A couple of things seem clear.

Within days of launch, there will be hundreds of thousands of these being used all over the country.

With that many sales, and as a device that's built to carry with you so other people can see it, it won't take long for a second wave of sales to start from people who either wanted to see one first or the many people who haven't even heard about the iPad yet.

I am just matching your childish nonsense. I work for one of the largest tech companies in the world and have been putting 15% in my 401k for 23 years now, getting a 50% match on 6%. I have another 20+ years if I want too until retirement and my portfolio past six zeros several years ago.

It doesn't take much to do the math and figure this out and it doesn't take much to realize when you work have worked for IBM having a good bit of Apple stock worked its way in for many years.

Wow. You work for a company that matches 50%.... (which is actually sort of sadly low for a supposedly well-performing Fortune 50 company). And that you've been investing for 23 years (like no one else has). Or six figures (like that is HUGE!). Wow.

This is a big question, but would anyone be tempted to fully sell their Mac/iMac/MBP and live completely with simply two devices say an iphone for mobile and then an iPad for home use?

Could it do 95% of the Mac's tasks? I do lots of written work at home but by being clever to do more at work I really wonder if it would be possible to shrink down to just a few small sexy hardware pieces at home and that's it.

The iPad is not trying to replace a Netbook.
A Netbook is just a cheap laptop, nothing more.
A Netbook is an underpowered. lower speced, smaller screened Laptop.
If you want a laptop buy a laptop, or if you don't have the cash a netbook.

The iPad is a different type of product, it is not a computer, it is not trying to be a computer.
It is a new type of product, something that we will just have around the house, and use when we want to access the internet, play games, etc. NOT COMPUTE, for that we will still use a computer.

Mmm, during the keynote presentation Steve Jobs was pretty adamant about how much Netbooks suck, and then offered the iPad as the vastly superior solution between a smartphone and a laptop. So it would seem Apple's position in the matter is that the iPad is most certainly intended to be a netbook replacement. And as far as not trying to be a computer goes, they did create iPad versions of their entire iWork suite.

They will get 2 months from early May to early July. This is what it will be. Just like the 2 months from no iPad to iPad. 2 months is more than enough for active iOS developers. This isn't 2008, when they had to start more than 4 months out just to get the ball rolling and have 20 Apps for sale when the 3G was released.

iOS 4.0 is not going to be unveiled at all until the iPad, BOTH models, are moving out the door. They don't want to shoot themselves in the foot and give people pause.

ie: "Wait, what's coming soon? 4 point what? Do I get that if I buy one today? think I'll wait..."

[...]

So, again, they are not going to announce anything new related to the iOS, specifically the next major upgrade to 4.0, until iPad sales are fully underway and all early adopters have made they move.

Fair enough. I was wondering about that as well. I just hope that my new iPhone comes at the latest at WWDC, so that my loooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggg wait is finally over , as it would be stupid to purchase one now ...

"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein

This is a big question, but would anyone be tempted to fully sell their Mac/iMac/MBP and live completely with simply two devices say an iphone for mobile and then an iPad for home use?

Could it do 95% of the Mac's tasks? I do lots of written work at home but by being clever to do more at work I really wonder if it would be possible to shrink down to just a few small sexy hardware pieces at home and that's it.

You couldn't if you wanted to, because Apple has forced the iPad into being a slave device it has to be synced with a computer in order to have any kind of media on it. And you can't plug your iPhone into your iPad to sync the two together. This is one of the biggest flaws with the iPad in my mind.

This is a big question, but would anyone be tempted to fully sell their Mac/iMac/MBP and live completely with simply two devices say an iphone for mobile and then an iPad for home use?

Could it do 95% of the Mac's tasks? I do lots of written work at home but by being clever to do more at work I really wonder if it would be possible to shrink down to just a few small sexy hardware pieces at home and that's it.

That is hard to quantify, but I'd say no only because it requires a PC/Mac with iTunes to sync iTunes content and backup. Honestly, it's a moot point because of that fact. A few may want it as a PC replacement but until you can sync an iPod or iPhone to it, it has an iTunes app on it not just and iPod app, it can backup to Time Machine and you can connect other storage devices to it then it's just like any other iDevice Apple has created.

We'll see the desktop OS on tablets fall away as Android starts showing up on most tablets later this year. Hopefully by then the mental association will change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

Mmm, during the keynote presentation Steve Jobs was pretty adamant about how much Netbooks suck, and then offered the iPad as the vastly superior solution between a smartphone and a laptop. So it would seem Apple's position in the matter is that the iPad is most certainly intended to be a netbook replacement. And as far as not trying to be a computer goes, they did create iPad versions of their entire iWork suite.

It will surely compete for the same consumer space and if you want to delve into technicalities for a moment a netbook is running a desktop OS and therefore can technically do more but that doesn't make it a better product or option.

An off-road bike can do substantially less than a cheap sedan but if I need a vehicle for offloading a cheap sedan sucks. That is basically what we have here. Apple has designed a product ideal for its "terrain" as an alternative "vehicle" for your computing needs.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

You couldn't if you wanted to, because Apple has forced the iPad into being a slave device it has to be synced with a computer in order to have any kind of media on it. And you can't plug your iPhone into your iPad to sync the two together. This is one of the biggest flaws with the iPad in my mind.

Apple has forced the iPod into being a slave device? Apple has forced the iPhone into being a slave device? Forcing is pretty damn hyperbolic as it was designed as a PC accessory from the ground up so no forcing was needed.

I'm over the whole 'i' naming scheme but when this was clearly and obviously intended to be an accessory device I was glad they used it, thinking that people would realize the intended usage by the naming. Apparently not. \

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

This is a big question, but would anyone be tempted to fully sell their Mac/iMac/MBP and live completely with simply two devices say an iphone for mobile and then an iPad for home use?

Could it do 95% of the Mac's tasks? I do lots of written work at home but by being clever to do more at work I really wonder if it would be possible to shrink down to just a few small sexy hardware pieces at home and that's it.

That's not the goal of the iPad. At least not in this release. For me it can't replace a mac because I'm a programmer. It should be a fantastic supplement to a mac, though. something to keep up with email, access the web, monitor my business, etc. while I'm away from my computers.

I do a lot of this with the iPhone today, but there are many cases where I really could use a bigger screen but don't need a full computer.

"If we look at the history of computers, it's easy to chart their evolution: as time passes, they get smaller and more powerful -- and their design changes to keep up with the advance of technology. It's been nearly two decades since the laptop's invention, and in that time we've moved into an era where portability is as necessary as a constant connection. In this new era, the laptop form factor has become increasingly unwieldy," Michael DeAgonia reports for Computerworld. "Unless you're sitting down, using one is an awkward balancing act; it's not exactly the best fit for an increasingly mobile world."

"For years, PC manufacturers fought the inherent awkwardness of their products by building smaller and smaller laptops," DeAgonia reports. "But a small netbook or laptop still relies on the same, increasingly outdated design: flip-up screen and computer/keyboard base."

"Then, in 2007, Apple changed the mobile game with the iPhone. The screen (and one main button) pretty much are the device. With the iPhone, the keyboard became virtual," DeAgonia reports. "The iPhone form factor and software combination created an immersive, yet mobile, experience -- and it showed what mobile computing really is. Suddenly, people everywhere realized they no longer had to have laptops to get work done on the go; they could do it on their iPhones."

DeAgonia reports, "With the release of the iPad on April 3, Apple is moving to the logical next step: Portable, focused computing is getting a bigger screen... I believe the iPad will usher in an age of computing for people who, until now, have eschewed computers as too complicated to understand and use. It will be the delivery on the promise Apple CEO Steve Jobs made with the introduction of the first Macintosh in 1984... Apple abstracted the concept of computing with the iPhone. And with the iPad, it seems to be abstracting the computer itself, which was always Jobs' goal."

DeAgonia reports, "When we look back a few years from now, we may see that Apple again steered the course of computing in a new direction."

That is hard to quantify, but I'd say no only because it requires a PC/Mac with iTunes to sync iTunes content and backup. Honestly, it's a moot point because of that fact. A few may want it as a PC replacement but until you can sync an iPod or iPhone to it, it has an iTunes app on it not just and iPod app, it can backup to Time Machine and you can connect other storage devices to it then it's just like any other iDevice Apple has created.

We'll see the desktop OS on tablets fall away as Android starts showing up on most tablets later this year. Hopefully by then the mental association will change.

It will surely compete for the same consumer space and if you want to delve into technicalities for a moment a netbook is running a desktop OS and therefore can technically do more but that doesn't make it a better product or option.

An off-road bike can do substantially less than a cheap sedan but if I need a vehicle for offloading a cheap sedan sucks. That is basically what we have here. Apple has designed a product ideal for its "terrain" as an alternative "vehicle" for your computing needs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

You couldn't if you wanted to, because Apple has forced the iPad into being a slave device — it has to be synced with a computer in order to have any kind of media on it. And you can't plug your iPhone into your iPad to sync the two together. This is one of the biggest flaws with the iPad in my mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alandail

That's not the goal of the iPad. At least not in this release. For me it can't replace a mac because I'm a programmer. It should be a fantastic supplement to a mac, though. something to keep up with email, access the web, monitor my business, etc. while I'm away from my computers.

I do a lot of this with the iPhone today, but there are many cases where I really could use a bigger screen but don't need a full computer.

You guys make some good points, including here. I think you're right in saying in this release it's not there yet as a stand alone device. Despite the ability to create iTunes accounts on the iPhone, and perhaps the idea that media will be streamed rather than stored locally (replacing the need for the syncing we cant avoid at the moment), the iPad offers a glimpse of how thin client type devices might serve us, but we're not there yet.

Notwithstanding all the reasons why it can't happen yet because of all the reasons you guys have outlined, I can't help but have this small idea that it would be nice to wipe the slate clean with computing power at home and try to live with these new devices as the sole means of production (perhaps excluding for work). We wiill all just have to give it a few years still and see whether the limitations are slowly addressed as the device matures, so we can program, write extensively, edit photos, run our lives and do everything we imagined from a slick, small package.

Apple has forced the iPod into being a slave device? Apple has forced the iPhone into being a slave device? Forcing is pretty damn hyperbolic as it was designed as a PC accessory from the ground up so no forcing was needed.

The iPod and iPhone do not have 10" screens and hardware capable of running apps like the iWork suite. By targeting the netbook market — and even offering the ability to use a desktop keyboard — Apple clearly considers the iPad more of a basic-needs computer than an accessory, but didn't take the few extra steps required to make it truly stand alone. The only thing keeping it limited to "accessory" status is a little bit of software; the same is most certainly not true for the iPhone and iPod, so clumping all three together from a functionality standpoint isn't really fair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by solipsism

I'm over the whole 'i' naming scheme but when this was clearly and obviously intended to be an accessory device I was glad they used it, thinking that people would realize the intended usage by the naming. Apparently not. \

The iPod and iPhone do not have 10" screens and hardware capable of running apps like the iWork suite. By targeting the netbook market — and even offering the ability to use a desktop keyboard — Apple clearly considers the iPad more of a basic-needs computer than an accessory, but didn't take the few extra steps required to make it truly stand alone. The only thing keeping it limited to "accessory" status is a little bit of software.

By that logic the iMac is clearly an accessory, not a computer

1) 10" is too small a desktop OS. A finge-based input as the primary navigational tool is not built into desktop OSes. netbooks and other tablets suck and have always sucked because of this shortsightedness from vendors.

2) They intended it to be an accessory device or they wouldn't require it to be synced to iTunes like all other iDevices. If they wanted it to be able to do everything poorly they would have stuffed Mac OS X into a netbook and been done with it.

3) The HW is capable of running iWork for the iPad, not iWork for Mac OS X. This was designed from the ground up for the iPad. They did not simply cram the desktop version of iWork into the iPad and call it a day.

4) The only thing keeping the iPhone from running the Zune OS is a little bit of software. What's your point? Apple has intentions for the iPad, you don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it. If you think they've made a mistake then buy another device. If you think no one has made the right device then make billions by making your own. There are no other options.

5) The 'i' comment was making fun of people who are seeing this as accessory device as a "desktop replacement" and then saying that "Apple fraked up" because it's can't replace their desktop. WTF!

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Apple clearly considers the iPad more of a basic-needs computer than an accessory, but didn't take the few extra steps required to make it truly stand alone. The only thing keeping it limited to "accessory" status is a little bit of software.

With that in mind, I can't help but think then as to whether the iPad could get serious dev attention, unofficially, to make it be the device that it has the potential to be by filling in the functionality gaps.

1) 10" is too small a desktop OS. A finge-based input as the primary navigational tool is not built into desktop OSes. netbooks and other tablets suck and have always sucked because of this shortsightedness from vendors.

2) They intended it to be an accessory device or they wouldn't require it to be synced to iTunes like all other iDevices. If they wanted it to be able to do everything poorly they would have stuffed Mac OS X into a netbook and been done with it.

3) The HW is capable of running iWork for the iPad, not iWork for Mac OS X. This was designed from the ground up for the iPad. They did not simply cram the desktop version of iWork into the iPad and call it a day.

4) The only thing keeping the iPhone from running the Zune OS is a little bit of software. What's your point? Apple has intentions for the iPad, you don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it. If you think they've made a mistake then buy another device. If you think no one has made the right device then make billions by making your own. There are no other options.

5) The 'i' comment was making fun of people who are seeing this as accessory device as a "desktop replacement" and then saying that "Apple fraked up" because it's can't replace their desktop. WTF!

1 & 3.) Who said anything about the iPad being a desktop OS replacement? My point is that the iPad is almost everything a person who doesn't need a desktop OS (and it's accompanying complex apps) would need. At this juncture, the desktop OS (and "real" computers) could almost be reserved solely for people who run things like the Adobe Creative Suite, Final Cut Studio, 3D Apps, 3D Games, and software development tools.

2.) You're suggesting that either the iPad had to sync with a computer running iTunes to obtain your purchased media, or it would have to suck at everything and run Mac OS X in it's entirety? Being a little dramatic, aren't we?

4.) Again, being a little dramatic? Writing a driver that would allow an iPhone/iPod to sync directly with an iPad, and making the iPad download all purchased media from the iTunes store once a user enters their iTunes username and password, is just a little simpler than porting an entire operating system to a different hardware device, don't you think? The latter isn't even a software change so much as it is a change in the iTunes Store's policy; allowing users to redownload all of their purchased media if it's not already on their device should be a given.

And if Apple can write software to allow importing JPEG and RAW photos from an SD card (directly or via the camera), then allowing an iPhone and iPad to sync directly to one-another with a 30-pin to 30-pin cable should be a no brainer for them. It's not like I'm asking for an iPod version of Maya, here.

Original iPods didn't run Mac OSX. I have no doubt the tablet will be able to display the RAW image and not the embedded JPEG - but time will tell.

If it really can display RAW images, Apple should be advertising the hell out of that feature; being able to import your photos and preview them on an iPad while out taking photos would be a huge boon for photographers, and I can't think of a better reason to pay extra for more than 16GB of memory.

Whether they are priced "in line" or not is debatable, but you're now making a substantially different argument. People do indeed buy user experience, and other less than tangible qualities. Clearly. This is what Apple has always sold. But again, I think you are making the mistake of assuming that Apple is going after the netbook market. If they wanted to do that, they'd be selling netbooks. Instead they are selling the iPad, which doesn't seem even remotely like a netbook to me. In fact its dissimilarity to netbooks is what a lot of geekdom seems to hate about it.

Apple is convinced that a large percentage of those who bought netbooks bought them because they were the cheapest and most mobile way to access the Web, send email, and watch video/movies. They weren't bought with content creation in mind. In some ways, the netbook (and notebook) is overkill for what these users really want. Apple has also noted that for most netbook owners or those considering a netbook, it would be a second computer. Thus, for now, the iPad has been built to be a second computer.

Thus, the iPad is Apple's netbook alternative. In the same way that Apple's computers and iPods cost a little bit more than the competition, the iPad will cost a little bit more and provide a much better user experience.

The mistake you're making is comparing the full breadth of the netbook to the iPad, and thus, they look like different things. You need to compare the user wants - and when you do, you find that for a large percentage of people, the netbook and the iPad are competing to fulfill those user wants.

That's not the goal of the iPad. At least not in this release. For me it can't replace a mac because I'm a programmer. It should be a fantastic supplement to a mac, though. something to keep up with email, access the web, monitor my business, etc. while I'm away from my computers.

I do a lot of this with the iPhone today, but there are many cases where I really could use a bigger screen but don't need a full computer.

Before the iPad (and ignoring the consequences of using Windows), would you have considered a netbook to fill that gap?

1 & 3.) Who said anything about the iPad being a desktop OS replacement? My point is that the iPad is almost everything a person who doesn't need a desktop OS (and it's accompanying complex apps) would need.

Agreed. I'd add that at the intro, Apple showed 3 categories of devices - iPhone/iPod, iPad, and notebooks. (The fourth category would be desktops but Apple was just talking mobile.) Notebooks can do more than the iPad, and the iPad can generally do more than the iPhone/iPod. But over time, as technology (CPU/GPU, battery) advances, the devices in each category become able to do more, and start doing things that the device in the next category up can do.

Quote:

4.) Again, being a little dramatic? Writing a driver that would allow an iPhone/iPod to sync directly with an iPad, and making the iPad download all purchased media from the iTunes store once a user enters their iTunes username and password, is just a little simpler than porting an entire operating system to a different hardware device, don't you think? The latter isn't even a software change so much as it is a change in the iTunes Store's policy; allowing users to redownload all of their purchased media if it's not already on their device should be a given.

One will be able to re-download all their apps directly to the iPad. And after the first sync with iTunes, there will be no need to use the notebook or desktop iTunes again to download music and video since you can download directly to the iPad. Apple's purchase of lala makes me think that we're not too far away from cutting the cord to notebook/desktop iTunes for content.

If you use MobileMe, photos, email, etc are already taken care of. What's left is OS updates and backups. There's no reason an OS update can't happen directly to the device over the Web, if the Web could also be used for backups. The main concern is reliability of Web backups and I would say it's not ready for primetime. An intermediate step could be an updated Time Capsule that could sync directly with the iPad for backups.

Apple is convinced that a large percentage of those who bought netbooks bought them because they were the cheapest and most mobile way to access the Web, send email, and watch video/movies. They weren't bought with content creation in mind. In some ways, the netbook (and notebook) is overkill for what these users really want. Apple has also noted that for most netbook owners or those considering a netbook, it would be a second computer. Thus, for now, the iPad has been built to be a second computer.

Thus, the iPad is Apple's netbook alternative. In the same way that Apple's computers and iPods cost a little bit more than the competition, the iPad will cost a little bit more and provide a much better user experience.

The mistake you're making is comparing the full breadth of the netbook to the iPad, and thus, they look like different things. You need to compare the user wants - and when you do, you find that for a large percentage of people, the netbook and the iPad are competing to fulfill those user wants.

So say you, but not me. If Apple was going after the netbook market, they'd be selling netbooks. They know that this would be a fool's errand, so they are not selling netbooks. Instead they are selling a device which is extremely difficult for anyone to confuse with a netbook. The mistake you are making is assuming that if they share any functionality, that they are substantially the same. To me it's obvious that Apple wants more than any other thing to distinguish the iPad from the netbook market.

So say you, but not me. If Apple was going after the netbook market, they'd be selling netbooks. They know that this would be a fool's errand, so they are not selling netbooks. Instead they are selling a device which is extremely difficult for anyone to confuse with a netbook.

I think what he's saying, which I agree, is that the iPad and netbooks will have a lot of crossover, likely with customers who would have previously chosen a netbook for light mobile computing choosing a lightweight tablet instead. Not just the iPad but Android-based tablets when they finally come to market.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"